Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Contract Law > Terms > Flashcards

Terms Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

Written contracts can consist of? (2)

A
  • Terms

- Oral Statements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Types of Terms? (3)

A
  • Innominate
  • Conditions
  • Warranty
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is an innominate term?

Case?

A
  • Wait and see whether contract terminable or not depends on effect of breach
  • If breached, remedy depends on circumstances
  • Parties’ intentions not determinative
  • Hong Kong Fir Shipping [1962]
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

2 types of Oral Statements?

A

1) Mere Puffs
- No legal significance
2) ‘Mere’ Representations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Remedies for ‘mere’ representation? (2)

A

Common Law Remedies

  • Innocent
  • Negligent
  • Fraudulent

Statutory Remedy
- Misrep Act 1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

If breach a condition?

A

Right to Terminate and damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

If breach a warranty?

A

Right to damages only

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Test to determine if an oral statement is a representation or a term?

A
  • Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton

-4 Principles:
1) timing,
oTime between statement and contract creation

2) importance,
oHow important is it that the statement is true
oIf not made, would contract be entered into?

3) whether term reduced to writing and
oWas it written down?

4) special knowledge
o Was one party in a better position to know than the other whether the statement was true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Parol Evidence Rule?

A

If an agreement has been set out in writing, then extrinsic evidence, that is evidence outside the document itself, cannot be used to add to, vary or contradict the terms of that document

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Exceptions to the Parol Evidence rule? (9)

A

A) Written agreement is not the whole agreement
Objective test
Did they intend something else?
B) Validity
Is the agreement a good contract?
C) Implied terms (Burges v Wickham)
Can bring extrinsic evidence to rebut an implied term
D) Operation of the contract (Pym v Campbell)
To show that the contract does not operate anymore
E) Evidence as to parties
Contracting on behalf of someone else
Who are the parties of the contract
F) Aid to construction
If unclear, extrinsic evidence can be admitted to explain the contract
G) To prove custom (Smith v Wilson)
H) Rectification
If the document does not record what the parties meant
Part of equity
Hard for commercial parties to use this (sophisticate party)
I) Collateral contract (City & Westminster v Mudd)
Try to show that there are 2 contracts
• 1 written
• 1 oral
• 2 rather than 1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Ways to incorporate terms into a contract? (3)

A
  1. Signature
  2. Reasonable steps to bring to notice
  3. Course of dealing or custom
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Incorporation by Notice?

Three Requirements?

A
  • Usually unsigned but written contract/Small print in or out

Three Requirements:
1. Notice must be given before or at time of contracting:
• Olley v Marlborough Court
• Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking

  1. Term must be contained or referred to in document intended to have contractual effect-receipts out:
    • Chapelton v Barry UDC
  2. Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring terms to attention of other party:
    • Parker v South Eastern
    • Interfoto v Stiletto
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Incorporation by Course of Dealing (2 Cases)

A

McCutcheon v MacBrayne 1964

British Crane Hire Corp v Ipswich Plant 1975

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Classification of terms: 3 ways?

A

A) Parliament: e.g. SGA ss 12-15
B) Courts
• Courts will determine if the clause is a condition or warranty
C) Parties
• Parties determine if clause is condition or warranty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

3 types of Implied Terms?

A

Custom
Statute
Law/Courts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Terms implied by fact?

test?

Case?

Judge?

A
  • Where parties have failed to provide for events/Specific to particular transaction

Test is necessity:
•Expressed as officious bystander OR business efficacy test

The Moorcock 1889

Mackinnon LJ
“something so obvious that it goes without saying”
- in Shirlaw v Southern Foundries 1939

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Terms Implied by law?

Test?

Case?

A

Second category of implied terms where issue is whether a term can be implied by virtue of the nature of the relationship between the parties. Leases, employment, government contracts… “ definable category of contractual relationship”

Test is still necessity but perhaps less stringent says McKendrick: somewhere between necessity and reasonableness?

Liverpool City Council v Irwin
- The necessity test is the main one for both terms to be implied in fact and in law
o In law, the test is applied less stringently

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Terms Implied by Statute?

Act?

Sections?

A

Contracts for the Sale of Goods

Sale of Goods Act 1979

S. 12 : Title
S. 13: Sale by description
- implied term that goods will correspond with description
S. 14: sale in course of a business
- implied term goods are satisfactory quality
s. 14(3) reasonably fit for purpose if…
s. 15 : sale by sample: correspondence with quality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

s. 13 SOGA 1979?

A

Sale by description

- implied term that goods will correspond with description

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

s. 14 SOGA 1979?

A

sale in course of a business
- implied term goods are satisfactory quality

s. 14(3) reasonably fit for purpose if…

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

s. 15 SOGA 1979?

A

Sale by sample: correspondence with quality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Interpretation of contracts?

2 cases?

A

Move from literal meaning to contextual/ ordinary/common sense principles of construction of contractual wording/commercial principles

BCCI v Ali [2001]

Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998
- Lord Hoffman’s five principles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Lord Hoffman’s five principles?

A

(1) Meaning to reasonable person with all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to parties at time of contract (objective test)

(2) Background=matrix of fact+ (limit to relevant in Ali)
• Includes everything relevant that the parties would have known entering into the contract

3) Exclude subjective intent and previous negotiations
• Other than actions for rectification

(4) Meaning is what parties would reasonably have been understood to mean
• What the parties reasonably understood to mean

(5) Yield to business common sense if “something has gone wrong with the language”
• People are generally clear when drafting the contract
o What they said if typically what they meant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Olley v Marlborough Court Facts

A

– O was staying at hotel
– Had her stuff stolen
– Note on the back of the door (no liability clause)
– O signed the contract in the lobby, not the room
– Held:
o Clause was too late
o After the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Olley v Marlborough Court Principle

A

Notice must be given before or at time of contracting

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Chapelton v Barry Facts

A

– C went to get tickets for Deck Chairs
– Tickets said they don’t accept liability
– Deck chair broke, injured C
– Held:
o Clause was ineffective
o Receipt was not appropriate place for contractual terms
o Terms must be placed where someone expects it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Chapelton v Barry Principle

A

Is the document one that would reasonably contain terms and conditions

Terms must be placed where someone expects it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Spurling v Bradshaw Facts

A

?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Spurling v Bradshaw Principle

A

Issue with previous dealings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Bannerman v White (1861) Facts

A 
o	Contract for the sale of Hops
o	Buyer asked if there was sulfur in it
o	Buyer said if yes, he didn’t want it
o	Was assured that there was none
o	There was sulfur in the hops
o	Important term of the contract? Or warranty?
o	Held:
•	It was a term
•	Important
•	It was a condition of the contract
•	Contract could be terminated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Bannerman v White (1861) Principle

A

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] Test

Importance of a term/statement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Oscar Chess v Williams Facts

A

• W traded in a car
• W believed it was the 1948 model
• It was really the 1939 model, worth less
• Someone changed the log book to make it appear this way
• Innocent mistake
• Was it a term or representation?
• If term, would give the dealer damages
• Held:
o Not a mistake because of lapse of time
o Term?
o It was a warranty (a promise of the contract)
o Because seller was not knowledgeable about the car it was an innocent misrepresentation
o Could not rescind contract because of lapse of time

• Dissenting:
o Should receive damages
o Should of used Misrepresentation Act 1967

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Oscar Chess v Williams Principle

A

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] Test

Contractual Term or Representation

Special Knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Facts

A 
•	D was the buyer, H was car dealer
•	H said car has done 20,000 miles, replaced engine and gear box
•	This was untrue
•	Who was the position to know the truth about the situation?
•	Objective test
•	Intention of the parties is important
•	Held:
o	For the Buyer
o	Dealer should have known better
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Dick Bentley v Harold Smith Principle

A

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] Test

contractual term or representation

Special Knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Rutledge v McKay [1954] Facts

A

• M said motorcycle he was selling was a 1942 model
• Contract just said motorcycle, no year
• Is the oral statement a term of the contract?
• Held:
o Just a representation
o Not a contractual statement
o If they intended it to be, they would have written it down

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Rutledge v McKay [1954] Principle

A

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton [1913] Test

Was it written down

If they intended it to be a term, they would have written it down

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Burges v Wickman Facts

A

?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Burges v Wickman Principle

A

?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Smith v Wilson Facts

A

–Case:
o Involved the sale of rabbits
o 1000 actually meant 1200 according to custom
o Judge said it was good

41
Q

Smith v Wilson Principle

A

Exception to the parole evidence rule

Can bring in extrinsic evidence to prove custom

42
Q

City & Westminster v Mudd Facts

A

o M was a tenant for 6 years
o He slept at the shop upstairs
o When lease was renewed, landlord wanted to make it only a business
o M asked if he could still sleep there, Landlord said yes
o Could evidence of this conversation be admitted to prove the other agreement?
o Held:
• Yes
• Could be admitted to prove external contract
• It was a separate agreement
• Collateral contract

43
Q

City & Westminster v Mudd Principle

A

Exception to the Parole evidence rule

Extrinsic evidence can be admitted to prove there is a collateral contract
- 2 contracts rather than 1

44
Q

L’Estrange v Graucob (1934) Facts

A 
–	Purchase of a cigarette vending machine
–	Form had a sweeping liability clause
–	Machine did not work
–	Form was printed in small print
–	Lord Denning was G’s council
–	Held:
o	She signed the document
o	No misrepresentation
o	Contract is enforced
o	Rule:
•	You sign it, you are bound by it
45
Q

L’Estrange v Graucob (1934) Principle

A

You sign the document, you are bound by it

46
Q

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning 1951 Facts

A

– P got her clothes dry cleaned
– D had a receipt that said they take no liability
– Told P that is was only beating, it was actually much wider
– Dress had stain
– D said clause covers it
– P sued D for damages
– Argued they mislead her about the clause
– Held:
o P to receive damages
o Misrepresentation

47
Q

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning 1951 Principle

A

Can avoid the rule in L’Estrange

If signature is obtained by misrepresentation

48
Q

Parker v South Eastern Railway Facts

A 
–	Got a ticket, checked his bag
–	Lost bag
–	Exclusion clause on ticket
–	Does it apply?
–	Held:
o	If he knew that there were terms and condition, but did not read them, he would be bound
o	Would a reasonable person expect to see the writing on the back of the ticket?
o	Objective test
o	Must bring notice to other party
49
Q

Parker v South Eastern Railway Principle

A

Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring terms to attention of other party

50
Q

Interfoto v Stiletto Facts

A

– Reasonable steps taken to bring notice of the clause to the other party
– S was a customer
– Terms and condition
– One condition was very strict about late fees
– S owed over £3,000 in late fees
– Held:
o Clause was so onerous that it was not part of the contract
o I did not do enough to draw attention to this cause
o “Red Ink with a Red Hand”
o New Rule
• If particularly onerous clause, must draw even more attention to it

51
Q

Interfoto v Stiletto Principle

A

Unfair Terms

Reasonable steps must have been taken to bring terms to attention of other party

Lord Denning
“Red Ink with a Red Hand”

New Rule
• If particularly onerous clause, must draw even more attention to it

52
Q

McCutcheon v MacBrayne Facts

A 
–	Terms and condition were posted outside the ferry office
–	Also in a risk note
–	Risk note was signed sometimes, but not always
–	Were the risk note terms incorporated?
–	Held:
o	No
o	There must be regularity 
o	Was not signed always
53
Q

McCutcheon v MacBrayne Principle

A

Incorporation by course of dealing

There must be regularity

54
Q

British Crane Hire Corp v Ipswich Plant 1975 Facts

A

– I called B, needed a crane
– No discussion of the terms and conditions
– B later sent a copy of terms and conditions
– Before I received it, the crane sunk in marshy grounds
– Clause in condition said I incurred expenses for damages
– Held:
o Terms are incorporated in contract
o Both parties were in the same business
o Standard condition in the trade
o I should be aware of condition

55
Q

British Crane Hire Corp v Ipswich Plant 1975 Principle

A

Incorporation by course of dealing

  • Same trade and industry
  • Not incorporated by course of dealing but both parties knew quite well substance of the conditions; common in the trade
56
Q

Schuler v Wickman (1974) Facts

A

– Condition of agreement that the business must visit the customers every week
– S wanted to terminate the agreement
– They argued that they did not make all the visits every week
– Held:
o Initially called a condition
o Unreasonable to terminate entire contract for missing 1 visit

– Dissent (Lord Wilberforce)
o It is a condition
o Freedom of contract

57
Q

Schuler v Wickman (1974) Principle

A

Initially called a condition
oUnreasonable to terminate entire contract for missing 1 visit
Not a condition

Dissent (Lord Wilberforce)
o It is a condition
o Freedom of contract

58
Q

Hong Kong Fir Shipping [1962] Facts

A

o Innominate terms was created in this case
o H was hired
o Ship was supposed to be sea worthy
o Sailed from US to Japan
o Ship was really old
o Hire was for 2 years
o Ship did not work for 20 weeks
o Enough to justify termination of contract?
o Held:
• If whole benefit of the contract is denied, termination is possible
• 20 weeks in 2 years is not enough to terminate

59
Q

Hong Kong Fir Shipping [1962] Principle

A

o Innominate terms was created in this case

• If whole benefit of the contract is denied, termination is possible

60
Q

Pym v Campbell (1856) Facts

A 
o	Sale of a patent
o	Written agreement was created
o	Oral agreement that patent wouldn’t be effective until 3rd party approval
o	Held:
•	Non promissory condition 
•	Condition to the contract taking place
61
Q

Pym v Campbell (1856) Principle

A

Non Promissory Condition
• Condition to the contract taking place

Exception to the parole evidence rule
To show that the contract does not operate anymore

62
Q

Promissory Condition?

Non-Promissory Condition?

A

– Promises that are part of the contract

o Condition where performance of the contract is dependent
o Condition that have to have happened before the contract can be created
– Pym v. Campbell (1856)

63
Q

Bettini v. Gye (1876) Facts

A 
o	B was an opera singer
o	G wanted to B to sing at concerts
o	B got sick
o	Showed up 3 days late to rehearsals
o	Gave no notice
o	G terminated the contract
o	B sued
o	Held:
•	Warranty, not a condition
•	Cannot terminate the contract
64
Q

Bettini v. Gye (1876) Principle

A
  • Warranty, not a condition

* Cannot terminate the contract

65
Q

Hutton v Warran (1836) Facts

A 
–	P was tenant of farm, D was landlord
–	P gave notice to quit
–	He had to work the land up until his tenancy 
–	When it ended, P was entitled to a fair allowance for his seeds and labor 
–	Held:
o	Yes, he is
o	Up until the end of the tenancy 
o	It was term implied by custom
66
Q

Hutton v Warran (1836) Principle

A

Term can be implied by custom

67
Q

The Moorcock case (1889) Facts

A

– M was a steam ship
– Did not pay to moor his ship, but did pay for the use of cranes
– Ship got damages from tide
– Owners of the ship sued the wharf owner for damage
– Held:
o Nothing in the contract that talks about protection of the ship
o Can imply a term here (Business efficacy test)
o Implied term of reasonable care

68
Q

The Moorcock case (1889) Principle

A

oTest is necessity:
• Expressed as officious bystander OR business efficacy test

– Must be so obvious that everyone knows it

69
Q

AG of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] Facts

A

– New test
– Appeal about an article by B
– If have golden share, can appoint directors
– Did not say what would happen if no longer had enough shares?
– Argument that it is implied that can retain spot of board as long as you have enough terms
– Held:
o Must be implied that when no longer have enough shares. Position no longer exists
o Must be reasonable and equitable
o Business efficacy
o Capable of clear expression
o Lord Hoffman created test

70
Q

AG of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd [2009] Principle

A

Must be reasonable and equitable
o Business efficacy
o Capable of clear expression
o Lord Hoffman created test

71
Q

Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading and Commerce [2009] Facts

A

o Dispute between owners of the ship
o Hired the ship
o Supposed to leave on a voyage
o Ship was damaged
o Owners said it was the fault of those who hired the ship
o Implied term that they must have a safe berth
o Held:
• Not implied
• Not necessary for the contract to work to have a safe berth
• Should have included the term

72
Q

Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading and Commerce [2009] Principle

A

– Accepted Lord Hoffman’s test (AG of Belize and others v Belize Telecom)
– Re-emphasized necessity
– Reasonableness is not enough, must be necessary

73
Q

AG of Belize and others v Belize Telecom Ltd
v
Mediterranean Salvage and Towage Ltd v Seamar Trading and Commerce

Difference?

A

Reasonableness vs Necessity

74
Q

Liverpool City Council v Irwin Facts

A 
–	HoL blurs terms implied in fact & law
–	L had a number of council flats
–	70 flats
–	in contract, lots of conditions
–	No condition imposed on the council
–	Case was about the communal areas of the flats
–	Rubbish got in bad shape
–	Tenants stopped paying rent
–	Argued that it was implied term for council to keep communal area clean
–	Held:
o	Not necessary for the contract to work
o	It is reasonable to imply this term
o	The council did actually keep the area in good shape
o	Does it need to be necessary?
o	Made necessity test less stringent
75
Q

Liverpool City Council v Irwin Facts

A

Terms implied by law

Test is still necessity but perhaps less stringent says McKendrick: somewhere between necessity and reasonableness?

76
Q

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board Facts

A

o Pension contributions
o Cheaper to buy into extra years (lasted 12 years)
o Argued that there was an implied term to inform of pension rights under contract
o Held:
• Necessity existed
• Requirements:
• 1) These terms are not individually negotiated
• 2) Employees have to take some action to get the benefit
• 3) Employee canot be reasonably be expected to know that the term exist unless told otherwise
• If all met, Term can be implied in law

77
Q

Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board Principle

A

Terms implied by law

78
Q

Crossley v Faithful Facts

A

– C was the senior director
– Contract said if he was ill, he gets 6 months full pay
– After, at the company’s discretion
– Entitled to benefit if he was not able to work
– He was terminated
– Contract said that once he was terminated, payments were not automatic
– He suffered a nervous brake down before being terminated, applied for early retirement
– After employment ended, he lost his benefits (at their discretion)
– C argued that there was an implied term that the company had to take reasonable care of his economic well being
– Held:
o No implied term
o No general obligation to take reasonable care of the economic well being of their employee
o Appealed, still rejected

79
Q

Crossley v Faithful Principle

A

Terms implied by law

court may take account of considerations of reasonableness

80
Q

Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] Facts

A

– Sale of a car
– Brand new range rover (they had problems in the 80s)
– Car had problems
– Didn’t make the car unroadworthy
– Was there a breach of s.14 Sales of Goods Act (quality)
– Held:
o Yes

81
Q

Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] Principle

A

– Was there a breach of s.14 Sales of Goods Act (quality)

Implied term by statute

82
Q

Stevenson v. Rogers [1999] Facts

A 
–	R sold fishing boat to S
–	Boat was unsatisfactory
–	Argued that it violate s.14
–	S. 14 only applies to business
–	S is a fisherman, is that a business? 
–	Held:
o	R’s business was fishing generally, should know better
o	Violated s.14
83
Q

Stevenson v. Rogers [1999] Principle

A

Implied term by law

Statute only applies to businesses

84
Q

Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998 Facts

A

o Bunch of investors
o They were compensated for their loses
o Agreement was signed by the investors
o ICS could sue on their behalf, with one exception
o Principles to how this one exception was to be interpreted
o 5 principles (listed below)
o Note was drafted for normal people to read

85
Q

Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich 1998 Principle

A

Lord Hoffmann’s five principles for interpreting contracts

oLord Hoffmann’s Principles
•	1) Interpretation
•	2)Matrix of Facts
•	3) Exclusions
•	4) Meaning of Words
•	5) Linguistic Mistake
86
Q

BCCI v Ali (2001) Facts

A

o Settlement agreement
o Term said it ended all the claims
o Hoffman: the words of the exclusion were very wide. The extra payment was a big deal (millions of £). He still agrees with it after looking at the principle.

87
Q

BCCI v Ali (2001) Principle

A

Interpretation of Contract terms

88
Q

Chartbrook Limited v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] Principle

A

HOL reaffirms objective approach to construing contracts
o Clarified when they would look at background information
o Look at what the parties would have done

Construe contract “in accordance with what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant, taking into account relevant background” factual matrix

89
Q

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton (1913) Facts

A

• B phones HS agent
• B says” I understand you are bringing out a rubber company”
• HS replies “We are”
• B asked for a prospectus, but there were none available
• B asked “ if it was alright”
• HS said “We are bringing it out”
• On the faith od this, B purchased shares
• Shares turned out to have little value
• Company was not accurately described as a ‘rubber company’
• B claimed damages for breach of contract
• Held:
o No breach of contract
o Merely a representation, no warranty
o No intention that there should be contractual liability regarding the statements
o 4 Factors in interpreting whether statements are terms or representations:

90
Q

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton (1913) Principle

A

o 4 Factors in interpreting whether statements are terms or representations:

  • 1) Timing
  • Time elapsed between making the statement and the final manifestation of the agreement
  • 2) Importance
  • Importance of the statement in the mind of the parties
  • 3) Whether the term is reduced to writing or not
  • If written down, more likely to be a term
  • 4) Special Knowledge
  • The maker of the statement is in a better position to determine the accuracy of the statement or have the responsibility of doing so
91
Q

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Mardon (1976) Facts

A

• E found a site on a busy main street to erect a petrol filling station
• E estimated that the station would reach 20,000 gallons in the third year of operation
• Planning authority refused permission to have the pump on the street
• Pumps were placed behind the building
• M applied for tenancy of the station
• E gave him the 20,000 gallon estimate, failing to take into consideration that the pumps were in the back
• M took the 3yr lease in reliance of the statement
• Despite M’s efforts, he could only sell 60,000 – 70,000 gallons
• E started an action for possession of the station and money due for the petrol
• M counterclaimed damages for breach of collateral warranty
• Held:
o There was a collateral contract
o That M would be able to sell 20,000 with reasonable care and skill
o E is liable for damages for breach of contract

92
Q

Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Mardon (1976) Principle

A
  • M counterclaimed damages for breach of collateral warranty
  • Held:

oThere was a collateral contract

oThat M would be able to sell 20,000 with reasonable care and skill

oE is liable for damages for breach of contract

93
Q

Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Arts Ltd (1990) Facts

A

• HL purchased painting from C for £6,000
• Painting was described in an auction catalogue as being by German impressionist artist Gabrielle Munter
• Both buyer and seller were London art dealers
• C were not experts on German paintings
• HL specialised in German paintings
• HL sent experts to inspect the painting before the purchase
• After the sale, HL discovered that it was a fake and worth less than £100
• HL brought an action under s.13 Sale of Goods Act
• Held:
o By sending experts, the sale was no longer by description
o S. 13 only applies to goods sold by description
o The buyers had not protection

94
Q

Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Arts Ltd (1990) Principle

A

Statutory Implied Terms

o By sending experts, the sale was no longer by description
o S. 13 only applies to goods sold by description
o The buyers had not protection

95
Q

Harling v Eddy (1951) Facts

A

• Seller of cow said it was healthy
• Cow died within 3 months of the sale because of sickness
• Was the statement a term of the contract?
• Held:
o Yes
o Seller had special knowledge
o If given verbal assurance of condition, it is a condition
• Not always the case if it is a warranty

96
Q

Harling v Eddy (1951) Principle

A

Special Knowledge

o If given verbal assurance of condition, it is a condition

97
Q

Evans v Kosmar Villa Holidays plc(2007 Facts

A

• E was 17
• Became a paraplegic after he dived into the shallow end of the swimming pool while on vacation
• Pool was attached to apartments owned by K
• There were two small ‘no diving’ signs
• The pool was never closed
• E did not know which end was the shallow end
• E reasonably thought the pool was available
• E argued that there was a breach of implied terms to the contract that the pool would follow proper guidleines
• Held:
o No breach
o Individuals are responsible for their own actions when there are good reasons why he should not

98
Q

Evans v Kosmar Villa Holidays plc(2007 Principle

A

o Individuals are responsible for their own actions when there are good reasons why he should not

Contract Law (12 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions